Abstract
Foraminifera are eukaryotic unicellular microorganisms inhabiting all marine environments.
The study of these protists has huge potential implications and benefits. They are good indicators of global change and are also promising indicators of the environmental health of marine ecosystems. Nevertheless, much remains to be learnt about foraminiferal ecology.
In this chapter we intend to introduce the main issues in the study of foraminifera in the Mediterranean Sea and the state-of-the-art developments in the study of these organisms.
The aims of this chapter are: (1) to provide a brief history of the study of foraminifera and (2) to review recent developments in the study of modern foraminifera, particularly as they apply to Mediterranean faunas. Our intention is to describe the development of the use of foraminiferal assemblages in Mediterranean applied ecological studies up to their possible use as bio-indicator for the monitoring of marine ecosystems.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
Foraminifera were first described and illustrated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (von Linnaeus 1758; Fichtel and Moll 1798; De Montfort 1808), but it was the French naturalist Alcide d’Orbigny who established a firm foundation for their study. In his 1826 work “Tableau Méthodique de la Classe des Céphalopodes”, d’Orbigny made the same mistake as earlier authors in describing these microscopic shells as those of minute cephalopods. He believed that the granuloreticulopods of living specimens were tiny tentacles, and also, like von Linnaeus (1758), recognized that many of the planispiral shells resembled Nautilus (Lipps et al. 2011). However, d’Orbigny’s major contribution was to establish these organisms as a distinct order (“Foraminifères”) because the chambers had apertures (foramina) that ensured the communication between different parts of the test instead of the siphons found in typical cephalopods. D’Orbigny’s (1826) ascribed 544 species to his Order Foraminifères; 335 were new species names that were published without descriptions. Since then, these minute organisms have become interesting objects of study by both geologists and biologists (Cifelli 1990).
For many years, fossil foraminiferal faunas have been used to date sediments and to reconstruct paleo-environments (Haq and Boersma 1998). The resulting knowledge of climatic and oceanographic changes in the geological past has been used to predict and model future environmental change (Sen Gupta 2002). However, in recent years there has been renewed interest among the scientific community in foraminifera as indicators of modern global change, i.e. global warming, rising sea levels and loss of biodiversity (Hillaire-Marcel and de Vernal 2007; Ingels et al. 2012) and as bioindicators of environmental health (Hallock et al. 2003; Gooday et al. 2009; Frontalini and Coccioni 2011). This last applied use of foraminifera involves the study of the existing faunas and their actual ecology. The application of biochemical and molecular techniques, normally applied to other organisms, are making scientists aware that foraminifera can be used in ecological studies and/or protocols for biomonitoring programs, in the same way as the larger metazoan meiofaunal and macrofaunal assemblages, and with similar or even better results.
The aims of this chapter are: (1) to provide a brief history of the study of foraminifera and (2) to review recent developments in the study of modern foraminifera, particularly as they apply to Mediterranean faunas. Our intention is to describe the development of the use of foraminiferal assemblages in Mediterranean applied ecological studies up to their possible use as bio-indicator for the monitoring of marine ecosystems. We highlight (1) the heterogeneous nature of the existing body of data that cannot be easily integrated to produce an overall synthesis of foraminiferal community parameters and (2) the consequent need for a standardised methodology. The latter will lead to an improved understanding of the role of foraminifera in the functioning of Mediterranean Sea ecosystems and aspects of their biology that are beyond the scope of environmental studies.
What Are Foraminifera?
Foraminifera are single-celled eukaryotic organisms (protists) with tests (shells) that are present as fossils in the sediments of the last 545 million years, as well as in modern oceans. Tests may be made of organic material, sand grains or other particles cemented together (‘agglutinated’), or crystalline CaCO3 (calcite or aragonite). The hard tests are commonly divided into chambers that are added during growth, although the simplest forms are open tubes or hollow spheres.
Fully grown individuals range in length size from about 100 μm or less to almost 20 cm. Some have a symbiotic relationship with algae. They consume food ranging from dissolved organic molecules, bacteria, diatoms and other single-celled algae, to small animals such as copepods. They catch their food with a highly mobile network of thin pseudopodia (called reticulopodia) that extend from one or more apertures in the shell. Foraminifera also use their pseudopodia for multiple other functions including locomotion, respiration and test building.
There are an estimated 4,000 benthic species of foraminifera living in the world’s oceans today (Murray 2007) on and in the sediment, on rocks and on macroalgae at the sea bottom, while only 40 species are planktonic (Hemleben et al. 1989). Foraminifera are found in all marine environments, from the intertidal to the deepest ocean trenches, and from the tropics to the poles, from brackish to hyper-saline waters. Recent studies suggest that they are present in freshwater and even in terrestrial habitats (Meisterfeld et al. 2001; Holzmann and Pawlowski 2002; Holzmann et al. 2003). Foraminifera are among the most abundant shelled organisms in many marine environments (Hayward et al. 2011). A cubic centimetre of sediment may yield hundreds of living individuals, and many more dead shells. In some habitats their shells are an important component of the sediment. For example, the pink sands of some beaches get much of their colour from the pink to red-colour shells of a particular species of foraminifer. In regions of the deep ocean far from land, the bottom sediment is often made up almost entirely of the shells of foraminifera (Fig. 13.1).
How Foraminifera Can Be Used in Applied Science
The study of fossil foraminifera has many practical applications beyond expanding our knowledge of the diversity of life. In particular they are useful in the field of stratigraphy, paleoenvironmental reconstruction, and oil exploration. The earliest foraminifera occurred in the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, 545 million years ago (McIlroy et al. 1994) and they show a continuous evolutionary development up to present time, so that different species are found at different times. This, together with the fact that they are abundant in all marine environments, and easy to collect, even from deep oil wells, explains why they have been extensively used for dating marine sedimentary rocks. Foraminifera are sensitive to environmental conditions and often associated with particular environmental settings (Haq and Boersma 1998; Sabbatini et al. 2002; Panieri 2005, 2006a, b; Gooday et al. 2010). This allows paleontologists to use foraminiferal fossils to reconstruct environments in the geological past. In this way, foraminifera have been used to map the former planetary distributions of the tropics, locate ancient shorelines, and track global ocean temperature changes during the ice ages (Hillaire-Marcel and de Vernal 2007). To reconstruct ancient environments, paleontologists employ metrics that are similar to those used to characterize modern assemblages. These include species diversity, the relative numbers of planktonic and benthic species, the ratios of different shell types, and shell chemistry (Murray 1991; Hillaire-Marcel and de Vernal 2007). One widely used set of proxies for environmental conditions in ancient oceans is provided by the ratios of stable isotopes present in the shell carbonate. Although modified by physiological (“vital”) effects, these ratios reflect the chemistry of the water in which foraminifera grew. For example, in 1955, Cesare Emiliani discovered that the ratio of stable oxygen isotopes depends on the water temperature, because warmer water tends to evaporate off more of the lighter isotopes. Since then, measurements of stable oxygen isotopes in planktonic and benthic foraminiferal shells from hundreds of deep-sea cores worldwide have been used to map past surface and bottom-water temperatures (Rohling and Cooke 2002). These data helps us understand how climate and ocean currents have changed in the past and may change in the future.
Many geologists work as biostratigraphers and use foraminifera extracted from drill cuttings recovered from oil wells to date sediments and reconstruct past environments. The stratigraphic analyses made using foraminifera as descriptors is so precise that these fossils are even used to direct sideways drilling within an oil-bearing horizon in order to increase well productivity. Since the 1920’s the oil industry has been an important employer of paleontologists specialised in the study of these microscopic fossils. As a result of their potential “economical significance”, foraminifera are better known for their spectacular fossil record than for their variety and abundance in modern marine environments. But, at the same time, curiosity-driven research, and the need to understand the present in order to interpret the past, has recently propelled paleontologists to learn more about the ecology of these protists.
Ecology of Benthic Foraminifera
Ecological studies of modern foraminifera (especially benthic taxa) started in the 1950s (Phleger 1960) and have increased over the past 60 years. Nevertheless, the main interest of the scientific community in this group remains focused on the use of their excellent fossil record to understand marine environmental changes in the geological (and historical) past. This leads to the paradox that the paleoecology of fossil foraminifera (based on some pioneer studies performed by geologist in the second half of the nineteenth century), is often better known than the ecology of modern species. Little is known about life cycles and lifestyles of most species of foraminifera. Reasonably complete life cycles are known for fewer than 30 of the 4,000 extant species. The few species that have been studied show a rich diversity of foraminiferal life cycles (i.e. involving alternating generations, apogamic, binary fission, different type of gametes and mode of fertilization) and a wide range of behaviours and diets. The classical life-cycle (i.e. gametogamy) in Elphidium crispum has been shown to be environmentally sensitive (Myers 1943). The whole life-cycle (both sexual and asexual phases) is completed in 1 year in temperate regions such as the Mediterranean basin.
These relatively large, shell-bearing protists typically constitute half or more of the deep-sea meiobenthos and are often an important constituent of the larger (>300 μm) macrofaunal size fraction as well. Together with bacteria, they are key players in the functioning of deep-sea benthic ecosystems. Some benthic species burrow actively through sediment at speeds up to 1 cm per hour, while others attach themselves to the surface of rocks or marine macroalgae. Many species feed at a low trophic level and play a crucial role in the long-term processing of fresh, photosynthetically-produced organic material that is transported to the ocean-floor as rapidly-sinking aggregates (Gooday 1993; Gooday et al. 2008). At least in some environmental setting, they collectively, process the same amount of labile organic matter as bacteria, although their biomass is a tiny fraction of that of bacteria (Moodley et al. 2002). Foraminifera are abundant enough to be an important part of the marine food chain, and their predators include scaphopods, isopods, marine snails, sand dollars and small fishes (Lipps 1983).
Studies conducted during the last decades have led to a better understanding of the biology of modern foraminifera (Le Cadre and Debenay 2006; Bentov et al. 2009; de Nooijer et al. 2009). However this group is scarcely used in monitoring studies because a standardization of protocols has not been achieved to date. Recently Schönfeld (2012) tackled this issue and reviewed the development of field and laboratory methods, their constraints and consequences for faunal and data analyses evidencing that much work remain to do.
The most important requirement is to discriminate between living and dead assemblages (Murray 2000). Over the last 20 years, new methods have been developed for this purpose, each one having a different degree of accuracy and based on a different rationale. Rose Bengal (RB), a non-vital stain that binds proteins and other macromolecules, is still the most widely used in ecological studies to recognize presumably dead (unstained) foraminifera from their living (stained) counterparts (Walton 1953; Murray and Bowser 2000). However, it does not discriminate between viable and recently dead organisms. Therefore, it becomes very important to effectively recognize the cell metabolism. In this context, the Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization technique (FISH), complementary to the CellTracker Green method (Bernhard et al. 2006), represents a new and useful approach to identify living cells possessing an active metabolism and also able to discriminate their grade of activity (Borrelli et al. 2011).
The Early Works on Mediterranean Foraminifera
The earliest work on Mediterranean foraminifera, dating from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, was descriptive and focused on taxonomic inventories (Soldani 1789, 1795; d’Orbigny 1826). During the last century, local faunal assemblages or selected species from the Western and Eastern Mediterranean were described; these included the works of Buchner (1940) and Hofker (1960) in the Gulf of Naples, Colom (1974) in the Balearic Sea, Le Calvez and Le Calvez (1958) in the Gulf of Lyon; Cherif (1970) in the Aegean Sea (Miliolacea), Fornasini (1902, 1904, 1905, 1906a, b) and Wiesner (1923) in the Adriatic Sea. Studies of benthic foraminiferal distributions in the Mediterranean started in the late 1860s when Jones and Parker (1860) proposed a synoptical table of the fossil and Recent species and varieties of benthic foraminifera (littoral to intertidal) from the Tyrrhenian, Adriatic and Levantine basins. More recent investigations, starting in the 1950s, have extended from shallow water down to abyssal (4,500 m) depths.
Parker (1958), Todd (1958), Blanc-Vernet (1969) and Colom (1974) were the first to conduct qualitative studies of modern bathyal benthic foraminiferal fauna in the Mediterranean Sea. In particular, Parker (1958) studied the distribution of 110 benthic and 18 planktonic species in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Sea and described four bathymetric faunal boundaries for the benthic species. Blanc-Vernet (1969) investigated living benthic foraminifera from the Aegean Sea, off Rhodes, Crete and Peloponnesus, along the coast of Marseille and Corsica and described their biogeographic, seasonal and habitat-specific distribution. Parisi (1981) worked on samples from bathyal depths (1,003–3,593 m) in the Tyrrhenian Sea and Straits of Sicily. Bizon and Bizon (1983) reported on the geographic and bathymetric distribution of species down to 2,000 m off Marseille, Corsica, and in the Ligurian Sea. Two studies have analysed samples from both the Eastern and Western Mediterranean. Cita and Zocchi (1978) worked in the Alboran, Balearic, Tyrrhenian, Ionian, and Levantine basins (166–4,625 m), while Cimerman and Langer (1991) provided a comprehensive review of the distribution and morphology of benthic foraminifera from numerous localities in the Adriatic Sea and from various sample stations in the Tyrrhenian Sea.
In general, earlier studies have focused on restricted areas. For instance, Albani and Serandrei Barbero (1982, 1990), Serandrei Barbero et al. (1989) and Albani et al. (1991) worked on recent benthic foraminifera in the Venice Lagoon (Northern Adriatic Sea) and recognized areas characterized by similar hydrographic conditions basing on these faunas. Sgarrella et al. (1983) studied modern benthic foraminifera from the Gulf of Policastro in the southern Tyrrhenian Sea in order to determine the influence of fresh-water discharge on the assemblages. In an important study covering a much wider geographical area, Jorissen (1987, 1988) analysed the distributions of benthic foraminiferal taphocoenoses found in 285 grab samples and piston-core tops from the Adriatic Sea. For the first time, he correlated the distribution and the morphology of these organisms to environmental parameters, such as the input of nutrients and suspended load from Italian rivers (mainly from the Po outflow) and the surface circulation responsible for the transport and distribution of these products to the bottom.
The relatively few studies of modern planktonic foraminifera in the Mediterranean include those of Blanc-Vernet (1969), Cifelli (1974), Thunell (1978), Blanc-Vernet et al. (1979), Vénec-Peyré (1990). Of particular note is the later work of Pujol and Vergnaud-Grazzini (1995) which is the most accurate study so far of the distribution of living planktonic foraminifera along a NW-SE transect across the Mediterranean Sea. Their observations indicated that geographical distributions and living depths are related to regional hydrography and productivity of the Mediterranean basins.
The Last 30 Years of Efforts in the Study of Benthic Foraminifera
In the past 30 years, research in this field has increased greatly, prompted by the need to understand modern foraminiferal distributions in order to interpret marine environmental changes in the historical past. This led to an increased emphasis on trying to understand the ecological requirements of modern foraminifera. In addition, benthic foraminifera have emerged as reliable indicators of the state of marine environments, in particular in shallow-water settings (Gooday et al. 2009; Balsamo et al. 2010, 2012; Frontalini and Coccioni 2011). In order to address these aims, different approaches were used, including the study of both unstained assemblages (i.e. the total assemblage comprising live and dead individuals without differentiating them) and living (Rose Bengal stained = RB stained) assemblages (Fig. 13.2).
The question of whether total or living assemblages best reflect the average environmental conditions is extensively debated by researchers (Murray 1982; Bergamin et al. 2003). For instance, Scott and Medioli (1980) assessed the validity of using the total (RB stained and dead) assemblage in ecological studies. They found that the high seasonal variability of the living (RB stained) assemblage may be attributed to seasonal climatic changes rather than changes in the prevailing marine environment. Murray (1982, 2000), however, argued that ecological studies must be based on the living assemblage, analysed over a period of time, in order to determine the relationships between living and dead assemblages. Alve and Murray (1994) found that, due to post-mortem processes influencing the dead (unstained) assemblage, such as dissolution of calcareous tests or transport, only results based on the living assemblage are reliable. Murray and Bowser (2000) emphasized that the main problem with total assemblages is that data on living assemblages (biocoenoses, not influenced by taphonomic changes) are combined with those on dead assemblages (tanathocoenoses or even taphocoenoses modified by taphonomic processes). In addition, the proportion of live and dead tests is influenced by several factors such as the thickness of sampled sediment layer, temporal variations of standing crop and the sedimentation rate. From this discussion it is clear that living assemblages, although certainly autochthonous, are affected by substantial temporal changes due to the high irregular foraminiferal life cycles and patchily distributed populations. Consequently, only samples collected during different seasons of the year can be considered to reflect the overall environment. On the other hand, total assemblages are affected by post-mortem processes, but they have the advantage that they represent the average environmental conditions during the time span corresponding to the deposition of the sediment sample. This approach is simpler, more practical and less costly and therefore may be preferred in environments where taphonomic processes are limited and autochthonous/allochthonous specimens can be recognized.
Various authors have used these different approaches to investigate modern Mediterranean benthic foraminiferal faunas during the last 30 years. During the 1980s and 1990s, a number of researchers described the relationships between the distribution of the unstained (live and dead individuals without differentiating them) benthic foraminiferal assemblages and the main environmental variables, i.e. oxygen, temperature, salinity, organic matter and grain size (Table 13.1, Fig. 13.3a). In the Adriatic Sea, Albani and Serandrei Barbero (1982, 1990), Albani et al. (1984, 1991, 1998, 2007, 2010) and Serandrei Barbero et al. (1989, 1999) thoroughly described modern benthic foraminifera on the continental shelf of the northern basin and the lagoon of Venice, interpreting them as indicators of different environmental settings, from intertidal to shallow water. Other studies based on unstained samples were conducted in the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Strait of Sicily. In these areas, where the human impact due to the presence of major ports (Naples and Augusta harbours) and industries (Bagnoli Bay) is high, work on benthic foraminifera has focused principally on possible links between pollution and assemblage characteristics, including changes in density and biodiversity, sensitive species, deformation of the shell (Bergamin et al. 2005; Ferraro and Lirer 2006; Ferraro et al. 2006, 2009; Di Leonardo et al. 2007; Valenti et al. 2008; Romano et al. 2008, 2009a; Carboni et al. 2009).
Other recent studies that use benthic foraminifera for environmental characterization have analysed the total fauna (Rose Bengal stained + dead) (Table 13.1, Fig. 13.3b). The majority of sampling sites are located in the Tyrrhenian Sea where authors anticipated that the presence of heavy metals would drive changes in benthic foraminiferal assemblages and cause test deformations (Bergamin et al. 2009; Cherchi et al. 2009; Romano et al. 2009b; Aloulou et al. 2012; Caruso et al. 2011). This approach was used by Coccioni (2000) in the Adriatic Sea and Samir and El-Din (2001) in the Levantine basin (Fig. 13.3b). Studies based on live plus dead assemblages have also addressed foraminiferal distributions (Donnici and Serandrei Barbero 2002; Buosi et al. 2012). De Rijk et al. (1999, 2000) analysed the distribution of Recent benthic foraminifera along a west–east bathyal and abyssal transect in the Mediterranean and their relation to the organic matter flux to the seafloor. Other papers document the impact of different environmental parameters (physical or chemical) on foraminiferal assemblages. For example, Milker et al. (2009) examined the influence of temperature on the distribution of modern shallow-water faunas, whereas Carboni et al. (2004) and Frezza and Carboni (2009) describe assemblages in the Tyrrhenian Sea influenced by the outflow of the river Ombrone, and Panieri (2005, 2006b) described the adaptation of benthic foraminifera to extreme environments (i.e. hydrothermal vent).
Finally, ecological studies of live (RB stained) assemblages have focused on their distribution and diversity, as well as their utility in biomonitoring (Table 13.1, Fig. 13.3c). Studies performed either in shallow areas or at deep sites (Fig. 13.4) have ranged from the description of foraminiferal microhabitats within the first 7 cm of sediment at a single shallow site close to the Po outlets (Barmawidjaja et al. 1992) to the spatial micro-distributions in the shallow subtidal zone in the northernmost Adriatic Sea (Hohenegger et al. 1993). Fontanier et al. (2008) compared samples from the Gulf of Lion slope (343–1,987 m) and one site located at 920 m in the Lacaze-Duthier Canyon, while Mojtahid et al. (2009, 2010) and Goineau et al. (2011, 2012) explored environmental control on live benthic foraminifera in a river-dominated shelf setting in their study of the Rhône prodelta (15–100 m). Pancotti (2011) conducted the only existing study of live assemblages in samples from the Eastern to Western Mediterranean. Her data provided new insights into foraminiferal diversity in the Mediterranean deep-sea, in particular, an apparent east-to-west increase in species richness corresponding to the productivity gradient, as well as indicating future research directions regarding factors controlling and threatening deep-sea biodiversity (Danovaro et al. 2010).
A number of authors have addressed the temporal variation (seasonal and/or inter-annual) of foraminiferal faunas, in terms of density and biodiversity, in relation to changes over time in key environmental parameters (i.e. oxygen, grain size, organic matter) (Soetaert et al. 1991; Jorissen et al. 1992; Pranovi and Serandrei Barbero 1994; Donnici et al. 1997; Schmiedl et al. 2000; Jannink 2001; Serandrei Barbero et al. 2003; Duijnstee et al. 2004; Panieri 2006b; Lampadariou et al. 2009; Sabbatini et al. 2010, 2012; Frontalini et al. 2011). A few papers consider the use of live (RB stained) foraminifera as environmental pollution indicators. Among these, Bergamin et al. (2003), Frontalini and Coccioni (2008), Coccioni et al. (2009), Frontalini et al. (2009, 2010), Buosi et al. (2010) used the FAI index (Foraminiferal Abnormality Index) to detect, on the basis of foraminiferal test morphology, the degree of ecosystem contamination in the central Adriatic and along the Italian coast of the Tyrrhenian Sea. Also of note are the studies of Yanko et al. (1999) describing the response of benthic foraminifera to heavy metal pollution along Mediterranean coast of Israel.
Others authors (e.g. Arieli et al. 2011) evaluated the potential long-term effect of rising sea-surface temperature caused by a thermal pollution from a power station on living benthic foraminifera, while Hyams-Kaphzan et al. (2009) and Elshanawany et al. (2011) explored the effects of anthropogenic eutrophication in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.
Unfortunately, the numerous foraminiferal studies conducted in the Mediterranean have utilised different methodologies (Balsamo et al. 2010, 2012; Frontalini and Coccioni 2011). This hampering the comparison of different studies and therefore the possibility to gather consistent data on biodiversity and abundance trends, or on the impact of a particular pollutant, or pollution in general, on the foraminifera. The problems are compounded by differences in staining and sampling methodologies, and the fact that an important part of the foraminiferal fauna is often neglected. In the following paragraph we will examine these two important issues (Table 13.1).
Problems in the Sampling Methodology
A variety of sampling gears has been used to collect material for the study of foraminifera (Murray 1991; Schönfeld 2012; Schönfeld et al. 2012). Earlier studies were based on samples obtained using grabs, gravity cores, or piston cores, which do not retain the surface sediment where living foraminifera are concentrated (Massiotta et al. 1976; Jorissen 1987; Parisi 1981) (Table 13.1). Even some recent investigations have been based on samples taken using grabs, due to problems in sampling in harbour areas and the unavailability of a box corer or multi-corer. In some cases the first few centimetres of sediment are removed and in others, subsamples are taken using plexiglas tubes (Donnici et al. 1997; Bergamin et al. 2003, 2009; Cherchi et al. 2009; Coccioni et al. 2009; Frontalini et al. 2010; Aloulou et al. 2012; Caruso et al. 2011; Elshanawany et al. 2011) (Table 13.1). However, most modern studies have employed box cores (de Stigter 1996; Soetaert et al. 1991; Barmawidjaja et al. 1992; Jorissen et al. 1992; de Rijk et al. 1999, 2000; Jannink 2001; Serandrei Barbero et al. 2003; Ferraro et al. 2006; Di Leonardo et al. 2007; Hyams-Kaphzan et al. 2009) (Table 13.1) or hydraulically-damped multiple corers (Schmiedl et al. 2000; Fontanier et al. 2008; Mojtahid et al. 2009, 2010; Goineau et al. 2011, 2012).
There is also a considerable variety in the subsampling procedure. Sample from grabs or box corers are often limited to the first few centimetres of sediment (0–1, 0–2 cm up to 0–5 and 0–7 cm) in both distributional and pollution studies. Several authors studied only the top 2 cm of sediment (Albani et al. 1984; Barmawidjaja et al. 1992; Panieri 2005, 2006a, b; Bergin et al. 2006; Romano et al. 2008, 2009a, b; Bergamin et al. 2009; Carboni et al. 2009; Sabbatini et al. 2010; Aloulou et al. 2012; Arieli et al. 2011) (Table 13.1). Others consider the first 3, 4, 5 or 7 cm of sediment (Frontalini et al. 2011) or even 20 cm (Ferraro et al. 2006, 2009) as one unit, thereby mixing the different levels without considering the living depth of individual species. Other authors, however, have addressed the important issue of the vertical distribution of foraminiferal species in the sediment. Generally, the first 2 cm are sub-sampled every 0.5 cm and levels below 2 cm are sub-sampled every cm. Only a few authors have examined sediment layers down to 10 cm depth (de Stigter 1996; Schmiedl et al. 2000; Jannink 2001; Fontanier et al. 2008; Hyams-Kaphzan et al. 2009). The studies of Hohenegger et al. (1993), Pancotti (2011), Pucci et al. (2009), Mojtahid et al. (2009, 2010) and Goineau et al. (2011, 2012) were limited to the first 5 cm.
Another important problem concerns sample replication, which provides statistically useful information on the small-scale density and biodiversity variability of faunal assemblages in terms of density and diversity. Although this is standard practice in metazoan meiofaunal and macrofaunal research, the use of replicated samples is still fairly rare in studies of foraminiferal distributions (Hohenegger et al. 1993; Duijnstee et al. 2004; Fontanier et al. 2008; Lampadariou et al. 2009; Pancotti 2011; Goineau et al. 2012), as well as in biomonitoring studies (Ferraro et al. 2006; Panieri 2006b; di Leonardo et al. 2007; Cherchi et al. 2009; Arieli et al. 2011). Sieve mesh size (Table 13.1) is another crucial variable that strongly influences assemblage composition. In the Mediterranean the following meshes have been used: 32, 38, 63, 90, 125, 150, 595 and 1,000 μm. A final point to consider is that in many geological-oriented studies, specimens are not identified to species level but grouped together as genera or morpho-group, making impossible to analyse the full extent of the assemblage diversity.
The Hard vs. Soft Shelled Foraminifera Issue
Few authors have included soft-shelled monothalamous species in their study of Mediterranean foraminifera: Soetaert et al. (1991) in the Gulf of Lions; Moodley et al. (1997), Pucci (2006), Pancotti (2011), Nardelli (2012) and Sabbatini et al. (2010, 2012) in the Adriatic Sea; Hatziyanni (1999), Lampadariou et al. (2009) in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Only Pucci (2006), Pancotti (2011), Nardelli (2012) and Sabbatini et al. (2010, 2012) have studied this rarely-studied component in terms of abundance and species diversity and in relation to the environmental setting (Fig. 13.5). Instead, some studies (Bizon and Bizon 1983; de Rijk et al. 2000; Fontanier et al. 2008) only report counts for selected species of soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera. All other authors have confined their investigations to hard-shelled species and therefore have not encompassed the full range of foraminiferal biodiversity in the Mediterranean (Fig. 13.6). As reported in the previous paragraphs, early studies did not consider treatment with Rose Bengal and therefore yielded total assemblages, that is, a mixture of live and dead tests. Other studies instead considered foraminiferal specimens stained with Rose Bengal to distinguish between alive and dead organisms at the time of collection. In addition, most analyses are based on the dry picking of individuals, but in some cases, (Table 13.1; e.g., Jannink 2001; Duijnstee et al. 2004; Panieri 2006a; Hyams-Kaphzan et al. 2009) the foraminifera were picked out from sample residues in water. This technique instead allows the evaluation of all the foraminifera, including the soft-shelled monothalamous forms with delicate organic or agglutinated walls that shrink and disappear when dried.
Soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera are often an important component of benthic fauna in both shallow and deep-water settings (Gooday 2002) and ignoring them would lead to underestimating the real variability of foraminiferal abundance and diversity. In the deep sediments of the Mediterranean Sea the soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera account for up to almost 30 % of the entire assemblage both in the western and eastern basin (Pancotti 2011). In the shallow northern Adriatic Sea, this component ranges from 20 to 60 % of the living (RB stained) assemblage (Sabbatini et al. 2010); it can reach even 80 % of relative abundance in shallow waters of the central Adriatic (Nardelli 2012).
Unfortunately, soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera are time consuming to extract, and largely undescribed. Moreover, they have little fossilization potential and therefore they are often ignored because they are not useful in paleoecological and geological studies. Also in comparison to the many workers on foraminifera in general, there are few specialists on soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera.
Nevertheless, there are some scattered, early records of soft-walled allogromiids from the Mediterranean Sea. Notable among these is the paper by Grüber (1884), who described several species from coastal waters of the Bay of Naples. These included Craterina mollis, later established as the type species of the genus Allogromia by Rhumbler (1904). Other examples are from Huxley (1910) who reports Shepheardella taeniformis from the Bay of Naples, and earlier Dujardin (1835) who described the gromiid Gromia oviformis (a close relative of the foraminifera) based on material from the NW Mediterranean coast and elsewhere. In more recent years, there have been few species-level studies of soft-shelled, monothalamous foraminifera from the Mediterranean. They include Nyholm’s (1951) description of an allogromiid-like protist, Marenda nematodes, from the Catalan coast. He distinguished the new species from free-living nematodes, which it closely resembles, by its slow movements when irritated by the light of the microscope.
Comprehensive studies of “entire” foraminiferal assemblages (i.e. including both soft and hard-shelled forms) are a recent development (Pucci 2006; Sabbatini et al. 2010, 2012; Pancotti 2011; Nardelli 2012). Pucci (2006) studied the biodiversity of benthic foraminifera along a shallow transect from the Po outflow to the central Adriatic Sea. Based on the results obtained in the period between May and June 2004, the coast between Goro (near the mouth of the river Po) and Cattolica (Central Adriatic coast) was divided into three areas with different foraminiferal assemblages linked to physical-chemical parameters (chlorophyll, oxygen, temperature and turbidity) and specific grain sizes. Pucci (2006) also reported qualitative data on soft-shelled monothalamous taxa, indicating that they were rather uncommon (6 % of all the stained foraminifera in the samples). However, they were distributed across all 14 transects along the Adriatic area from Cattolica to Goro, and were most abundant in the northern transects in front of the Comacchio region. The relative abundance of soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera reached 65 % at one station located near the coast at 5 m water depth off Comacchio. Most of the soft-shelled monothalamous species were undescribed and there was a relatively high abundance of small, thin wall specimens.
Sabbatini et al. (2010) investigated the foraminiferal faunas, including the soft-shelled monothalamous component, along a shallow bathymetric transect in the Gulf of Trieste. The distribution of foraminiferal species was a function of differences in water depth, granulometry and distance from fresh water sources and other chemical and physical parameters (temperature, salinity and dissolved oxygen). The absolute and relative abundance of soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera decreased with distance from the coast (and the nutrient source, the Isonzo River). All the soft-shelled monothalamous taxa found were new for the North Adriatic waters, undescribed at the species level and, in most cases, even at the genus level. Similar taxa are also abundant in deep waters. A regional-scale study extending from the western to the eastern part of the deep Mediterranean basin (Pancotti 2011) revealed that soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera, the vast majority of them undescribed, represent at least 50 % of the assemblage at depths >1,500 m.
Benthic foraminifera make an important contribution to meiofaunal biomass. In some areas (the Algerian-Provençal and the Levantine basins), their biomass is comparable to that of the metazoan meiofauna. Sabbatini et al. (2012) analysed relationships between foraminiferal communities and trophic status in coastal sediments, revealing that temporal (seasonal) variability in the quantity and composition of the food sources is responsible of the variability of foraminiferal assemblages. These authors also suggested that soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera (allogromiids sensu lato) respond to the nutritional quality of sedimentary organic matter rather than to its quantity. Nardelli (2012) described the occurrence of soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera in a shallow water hydrocarbon seepage from the central Adriatic Sea; the soft-shelled component is particularly dominant (80 % of the entire foraminiferal assemblages) at the proximal station of the hydrocarbon seep influenced by the presence of high concentration of volatile aliphatic compounds.
The studies reviewed above emphasize the importance of soft-shelled monothalamous foraminifera and their potential in biomonitoring studies even if they cannot provide information on past ecosystems because they do not fossilize. The soft-shelled taxa must be taken into account in order to achieve a comprehensive taxonomic and ecological overview of foraminiferal assemblages. Their study can add information of importance in biomonitoring studies, particularly in shallow-water ecosystems where they can account for >50 % of living foraminifera. Moreover, ecological studies of some key “allogromiid” species in coastal environments could lead to the recognition of sensitive or tolerant species with the potential to be used as bioindicators in the same way as hard-shelled foraminifera.
The Last Frontier in the Study of Foraminifera
The last frontier in the study of benthic foraminifera is the experimental approach. Laboratory experiments make it possible to evaluate foraminiferal responses to changes in one or more chemical-physical parameters under controlled conditions, either at the level of the whole fauna (in micro- or mesocosms) or of one or a few selected species (in culture). The results obtained in the laboratory could represent a model, albeit simplified, of ecosystem functioning, and can be tested in situ. Duijnstee (2001) conducted laboratory experiments to explore how marine snow events (causing anoxia) influenced foraminiferal growth, reproduction and survival. Comparison of community structure in stressed situations and less stressed conditions can provide information on how the different species will respond to oxygen stress. This is very important, because oxygen availability is often considered to be the most important variable determining the structure of benthic communities in environments with high nutrient loads, as in the Adriatic Sea. Ernst (2002) examined this issue further in microcosm experiments aimed at assessing the separate effect of the oxygen concentration and organic flux on benthic foraminiferal assemblages.
In the Adriatic Sea, Pucci et al. (2009) conducted mesocosm experiment to evaluate the survival of benthic foraminifera under hypoxic conditions, a potential source of stress, especially in eutrophic and shallow environments subjected to pollution from industrial activity. In anoxic sediments, the upward migration of foraminiferal species could be caused by decreasing oxygen concentrations in deeper sediment layers but also by changes in the distribution and availability of trophic resources at different sediment levels. In this context, Heinz et al. (2001) described the response of benthic foraminifera from the Gulf of Taranto (Ionian Sea) and Gulf of Lions (Ligurian-Provençal sub-basin) to simulate phytoplankton pulses under laboratory conditions.
The use of benthic foraminiferal assemblages for the assessment of the quality of marine ecosystems has grown recently because of the high potential and of these organisms as monitoring tools (Schönfeld 2012; Schönfeld et al. 2012). Foraminifera respond rapidly to environmental changes, are relatively easy and cheap to sample and have an excellent fossil record, which can provide some information about the pre-impact conditions of the environment under scrutiny. However, many aspects of their biology remain far from clear, yet. Unlike other taxa already used for biomonitoring and ecotoxicological purposes, little is known in detail about how different kinds of impact affect their ecology and biology, including growth, death and reproduction rates, mechanisms of defence, intra- and inter-specific relationships. Moreover, the effects of chemical pollution on the biomineralization processes of calcareous species are poorly understood. To explore some of these issues through experimental studies, Nardelli (2012) performed a series of experiments on a miliolid species (Triloculina rotunda) aiming to investigate the effects of zinc contamination on its growth, survival, reproduction and cellular ultrastructure. The experimental species proved to be highly tolerant to zinc, in terms of survival (<50 % of deaths until 10 mg/l of zinc). This is probably due to its ability of this species to bioaccumulate the metal, as evidenced by ultrastructural observations at transmission microscopy (TEM). On the other hand, effects on growth rates (stop or delay of growth) were already observed at a zinc concentration of 0.1 mg/l and they seem to influence metal incorporations rates into the shell. In fact at the zinc concentration of 0.1 mg/l corresponded to a decrease of zinc incorporation rates into calcite, possibly as a consequence of cellular disease. The study also demonstrated that zinc, by itself, is not able to cause test deformations, as previously hypothesized by several authors (e.g. Sharifi et al. 1991; Samir and El-Din 2001; Romano et al. 2008; Madkour and Ali 2009). The work of Nardelli (2012), in which the cytology, biogeochemistry, and ecology of foraminiferal species were examined under controlled conditions, offers a promising approach to improving our knowledge of aspects of foraminiferal biology that are beyond the scope of environmental studies. Unfortunately, a considerable research effort is still required to further develop the culturing protocols necessary to improve this kind of experiments.
Concluding Remarks
The aim of this chapter has been to introduce the main issues in the study of foraminifera in the Mediterranean Sea and the state-of-the-art developments in the study of these organisms. The study of these protists has huge potential implications and benefits. They are good indicators of global change and are also promising indicators of the environmental health of marine ecosystems. Nevertheless, much remains to be learnt about foraminiferal ecology. We stress here that the study of the ecology of foraminifera has been often hampered to date by inconsistent methodologies which have yielded an equally inconsistent body of data that cannot be easily integrated to produce an overall synthesis of community parameters. In the future, researchers will need to focus on specific topics and apply similar methodologies to improve our understanding of the role of foraminifera in the functioning of both present and past Mediterranean Sea ecosystems.
References
Albani AD, Serandrei Barbero R (1982) A foraminiferal fauna from the lagoon of Venice. Mar Micropaleontol 25:187–217
Albani AD, Serandrei Barbero B (1990) I foraminiferi della Laguna e del Golfo di Venezia. Mem Sci Geol 42:271–341
Albani AD, Favero I, Serandrei Barbero R (1984) Benthonic foraminifera as indicators of intertidal environments. Geo-Mar Lett 4:43–47
Albani AD, Favero I, Serandrei Barbero R (1991) The distribution and ecological significance of recent foraminifera in the lagoon south of Venice. Rev Española Micropaleontol 23:129–143
Albani AD, Favero I, Serandrei Barbero R (1998) Distribution of sediment and benthic foraminifera in the Gulf of Venice, Italy. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 46:251–265
Albani AD, Favero I, Serandrei Barbero R (2007) Foraminifera as ecological indicators in the Lagoon of Venice, Italy. Ecol Indic 7:239–253
Albani AD, Donnici S, Serandrei Barbero R, Rickwood PC (2010) Seabed sediments and foraminifera over the Lido Inlet: comparison between 1983 and 2006 distribution patterns. Cont Shelf Res 30:847–858
Aloulou F, EllEuch B, Kallel M (2012) Benthic foraminifera assemblages as pollution proxies in the Northern Coast of Gabes Gulf, Tunisia. Environ Monit Assess 184:777–795
Alve E, Murray J (1994) Ecology and taphonomy of benthic foraminifera in a temperate mesotidal inlet. J Foraminifer Res 24:18–27
Arieli RN, Almogi-Labin A, Abramovich S, Herut B (2011) The effect of the thermal pollution on benthic foraminiferal assemblages in the Mediterranean shoreface adjacent to Hadera power plant (Israel). Mar Pollut Bull 62:1002–1012
Balsamo M, Albertelli G, Ceccherelli VU, Coccioni R, Colangelo MA, Curini-Galletti M, Danovaro R, D’Addabbo R, De Leonardis C, Fabiano M, Frontalini F, Gallo M, Gambi C, Guidi L, Moreno M, Pusceddu A, Sandulli R, Semprucci F, Todaro MA, Tongiorgi P (2010) Meiofauna of the Adriatic Sea: present knowledge and future perspectives. Chem Ecol 26:45–63
Balsamo M, Semprucci F, Frontalini F, Coccioni R (2012) Meiofauna as a tool for marine ecosystem biomonitoring. In: Cruzado A (ed) Marine ecosystem. InTech, Rijeka
Barmawidjaja DM, Jorissen F, Puskaric S, Van der Zwann GJ (1992) Microhabitat selection by benthic foraminifera in the northern Adriatic Sea. J Foraminifer Res 22:297–317
Bentov S, Brownlee C, Erez J (2009) The role of seawater endocytosis in the biomineralization process in calcareous foraminifera. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:21500–21504
Bergamin L, Romano E, Gabellini M, Ausili A, Carboni MG (2003) Chemical-physical and ecological characterisation in the environmental project of a polluted coastal area: the Bagnoli case study. Mediterr Mar Sci 4:5–20
Bergamin L, Romano E, Celia M (2005) Pollution monitoring of Bagnoli Bay (Tyrrhenian Sea, Naples Italy): a chemical-physical and ecological approach. Aquat Ecosyst Health 8:293–302
Bergamin L, Romano E, Finoia MG, Venti F, Bianchi J, Colasanti A, Ausili A (2009) Benthic foraminifera from the coastal zone of Baia (Naples, Italy): assemblage distribution and modification as tools for environmental characterization. Mar Pollut Bull 59:234–244
Bergin F, Kucuksezgin F, Uluturhan E, Barut IF, Meric E, Avsar N, Nazik A (2006) The response of benthic foraminifera and ostracoda to heavy metal pollution in Gulf of Izmir (Eastern Aegean Sea). Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 66:368–386
Bernhard JM, Ostermann DR, Williams DS, Blanks JK (2006) Comparison of two methods to identify live benthic foraminifera: a test between Rose Bengal and Cell Tracker Green with implications for stable isotope paleoreconstructions. Paleoceanography 21:PA4210. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006PA001290/abstract
Bizon G, Bizon JJ (1983) Les foraminifères des sediments profonds. Pêtrole et techniques 302:59–94
Blanc-Vernet L (1969) Contribution à l’Etude des Foraminifères de Méditerranée. Relation entre la microfaune et le sédiment. Biocénoses actuelles, thanatocénoses pliocènes et quaternaires. Récueil des Travaux de la Station Marine d'Endoume 64:1–251
Blanc-Vernet L, Clairefond P, Orsolini P (1979) La Mer Pelagienne. Les foraminifères Annales de l’Université de Provence 6:171–209
Borrelli C, Sabbatini A, Luna GM, Nardelli MP, Sbaffi T, Morigi C, Danovaro R, Negri A (2011) Technical note: determination of the metabolically active fraction of benthic foraminifera by means of Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH). Biogeosciences 8:2075–2088
Buchner P (1940) Die Lagenen des Golfes von Neapel und der marinen Ablagerungen auf Ischia (Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte der Insel Ischia 1). Nova Acta Leopoldina, Neue Folge 9:363–560
Buosi C, Frontalini F, Da Pelo S, Cherchi A, Coccioni R, Bucci C (2010) Foraminiferal proxies for environmental monitoring in the polluted lagoon of Santa Gilla (Cagliari, Italy). Present Environ Sustain Dev 4:91–104
Buosi C, du Châtelet A, Cherchi A (2012) Benthic foraminiferal assemblages in the current-dominated Strait of Bonifacio (Mediterranean Sea). J Foraminifer Res 42:39–55
Carboni MG, Frezza V, Bergamin L (2004) Distribution of recent benthic foraminifers in the Ombrone River Basin (Tuscany continental shelf, Tyrrhenian Sea Italy): relations with fluvial run off. In: Coccioni R, Galeotti S, Lirer F (eds) Proceedings in the 1st Italian meeting on environmental micropaleontology. Grzybozsky Foundation Special Publication, Urbino
Carboni MG, Succi MC, Bergamin L, Di Bella L, Frezza V, Landini B (2009) Benthic foraminifera from two coastal lakes of southern Latium (Italy). Preliminary evaluation of environmental quality. Mar Pollut Bull 59:268–280
Caruso A, Cosentino C, Tranchina L, Brai M (2011) Response of benthic foraminifera to heavy metal contamination in marine sediments (Sicilian coasts, Mediterranean Sea). Chem Ecol 27:9–30
Cherchi A, Da Pelo S, Ibba A, Mana D, Buosi C, Floris N (2009) Benthic foraminifera response and geochemical characterization of the coastal environment surrounding the polluted industrial area of Portovesme (South-Western Sardinia, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 59:281–296
Cherif OH (1970) Die Miliolacea der West-Küste von Naxos (Griechenland) und ihre Lebensbereiche. Dissertation, University of Clausthal
Chierici MA, Busi MT, Cita MB (1962) Contribution à une étude écologique des foraminifères dans la Mer Adriatique. Rev Micropaleontol 2:123–142
Cifelli R (1974) Planktonic foraminifera from the Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic waters (Cruise 49 of the Atlantis II, 1969). J Foraminifer Res 4:171–183
Cifelli R (1990) Foraminiferal classification from d’Orbigny to Galloway. Cushman Found Foramineral Res Spec Publ 27:1–88
Cimerman F, Langer M (1991) Mediterranean foraminifera. Slovenska Akademija Znanosti Umetnosti, Ljubljana
Cita MB, Zocchi M (1978) Distribution patterns of benthic foraminifera on the floor of the Mediterranean Sea. Oceanol Acta 1:445–462
Coccioni R (2000) Benthic foraminifera as bioindicators of heavy metal pollution – a case study from the Goro Lagoon (Italy). In: Martin RE (ed) Environmental micropaleontology: the application of microfossils to environmental geology. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York
Coccioni R, Frontalini F, Marsili A, Mana D (2009) Benthic foraminifera and trace element distribution: a case-study from the heavily polluted lagoon of Venice (Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 59:257–267
Colom G (1974) Foraminiferos ibéricos. Introducción al estudio de las especies bentónicas recientes. Investig Pesq 38:1–245
d’Orbigny A (1826) Tableau Métodique de la Classe des Céphalopodes. Ann Sci Nat 7:245–314
Danovaro R, Company JB, Corinaldesi C, D’Onghia G, Galil B, Gambi C, Gooday AJ, Lampadariou N, Luna GM, Morigi C, Karine O, Polymenakou P, Ramirez-Llodra E, Sabbatini A, Sardà F, Sibuet M, Tselepides A (2010) Deep-Sea biodiversity in the Mediterranean Sea: the known, the unknown and the unknowable. PLoS One 5:e11832. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011832
De Montfort PD (1808) Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des Coquilles. Schoell, Paris
de Nooijer LJ, Toyofuku T, Kitazato H (2009) Foraminifera promote calcification by elevating their intracellular pH. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:15374–15378
de Rijk S, Troelstra SR, Rohling EJ (1999) Benthic foraminiferal distribution in the Mediterranean Sea. J Foraminifer Res 29:93–103
de Rijk S, Jorissen F, Rohling EJ, Troelstra SR (2000) Organic flux on bathymetric zonation of Mediterranean benthic foraminifera. Mar Micropaleontol 40:151–166
de Stigter HC (1996) Recent and fossil benthic foraminifera in the Adriatic Sea: distribution patterns in relation to organic carbon flux and oxygen concentration at the seabed. Geologica Ultraiectina 144:1–254
Di Leonardo R, Bellanca A, Capotondi L, Cundy A, Neri R (2007) Possible impacts of Hg and PAH contamination on benthic foraminiferal assemblages: an example from the Sicilian coast, central Mediterranean. Sci Total Environ 388:168–183
Donnici S, Serandrei Barbero R (2002) The benthic foraminiferal communities of the northern Adriatic continental shelf. Mar Micropaleontol 44:93–123
Donnici S, Serandrei Barbero R, Taroni G (1997) Living benthic foraminifera in the Lagoon of Venice (Italy). Populations dynamics and its significance. Micropaleontology 43:440–454
Duijnstee I (2001) Experimental ecology of foraminifera. Dissertation, University of Utrecht
Duijnstee I, de Lugt I, Vonk Noordegraaf H, van der Zwaan B (2004) Temporal variability of foraminiferal densities in the northern Adriatic Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 50:125–148
Dujardin F (1835) Recherche sur les organismes inférieurs. Ann Sci Nat Paris Zool 2:343–377
Elshanawany R, Ibrahim MI, Milker Y, Schmiedl G, Badr N, Kholeif SEA, Zonneveld KAF (2011) Anthropogenic impact on benthic foraminifera, Abu-Qir Bay, Alexandria, Egypt. J Foraminifer Res 41:326–348
Emiliani C (1955) Pleistocene temperatures. J Geol 63:538–578
Ernst SR (2002) An experimental study on the proxy value of benthic foraminifera. Geologica Ultraiectina 220:1–157
Ferraro L, Lirer F (2006) Morphological variations of benthonic foraminiferal tests from Holocene sediments of the Punta Campanella shelf (south Tyrrhenian Sea). In: Coccioni R, Marsili A (eds) Proceedings of the second and third Italian meetings on environmental micropaleontology. Grzybozsky Foundation Special Publication, Urbino
Ferraro L, Sprovieri M, Alberico I, Lirer F, Prevedello L, Marsella E (2006) Benthic foraminifera and heavy metals distribution: a case study from the Naples Harbour (Tyrrhenian Sea, southern Italy). Environ Pollut 142:274–287
Ferraro L, Sammartino S, Feo ML, Rumolo P, Salvagio Manta D, Ennio Marsella E, Sprovieri M (2009) Utility of benthic foraminifera for biomonitoring of contamination in marine sediments: a case study from the Naples Harbour (Southern Italy). J Environ Monit 11:1226–1235
Fichtel L, Moll JPC (1798) Testacea Microscopica Aliaque Minuta ex Generibus Argonauta et Nautilus ad Naturam Delineata et Descripta. Pichler, Wien
Fontanier C, Jorissen FJ, Lansard B, Mouret A, Buscail R, Schmidt S, Kerherve´ P, Buron F, Zaragosi S, Hunault G, Ernoult E, Artero C, Anschutz A, Rabouille C (2008) Live foraminifera from the open slope between Grand Rhone and Petit Rhone Canyons (Gulf of Lions, NW Mediterranean). Deep-Sea Res I 55:1532–1553
Fornasini C (1902) Sinossi metodica dei foraminiferi sin qui rinvenuti nella sabbia de Lido di Rimini. Memorie della Regia Accademia de le Scienze de l’Istituto di Bologna 5:205–212
Fornasini C (1904) Illustrazione di specie orbignyane di Miliolidi istituite nel 1826. Memorie della Regia Accademia de le Scienze de l’Istituto di Bologna 6:1–17
Fornasini C (1905) Illustrazione di specie orbignyane di Miliolidi istituite nel 1826. Memorie della Regia Accademia de le Scienze de l’Istituto di Bologna 6:1–14
Fornasini C (1906a) Illustrazione di specie orbignyane di “Rotalidi” istituite nel 1826. Memorie della Regia Accademia de le Scienze de l’Istituto di Bologna 6:61–70
Fornasini (1906b) Illustrazione di specie orbignyane di Nodosaridi, di Rotalidi et d’altri foraminiferi. Memorie della Regia Accademia de le Scienze de l’Istituto di Bologna 6:41–54
Frezza V, Carboni MG (2009) Distribution of recent foraminiferal assemblages near the Ombrone river mouth (Northern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Rev Micropaleontol 52:43–66
Frontalini F, Coccioni R (2008) Benthic foraminifera for heavy metal pollution monitoring: a case study from the central Adriatic Sea coast of Italy. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 76:404–417
Frontalini F, Coccioni R (2011) Benthic foraminifera as bioindicators of pollution: a review of Italian research over the last three decades. Rev Micropaleontol 54:115–127
Frontalini F, Buosi C, Da Pelo S, Coccioni R, Cherchi A, Bucci C (2009) Benthic foraminifera as bio-indicators of trace element pollution in the heavily contaminated Santa Gilla lagoon (Cagliari, Italy). Mar Pollut Bull 58:858–877
Frontalini F, Coccioni R, Bucci C (2010) Benthic foraminiferal assemblages and trace element contents from the lagoons of Orbetello and Lesina. Environ Monit Assess 170:245–260
Frontalini F, Semprucci F, Coccioni R, Balsamo M, Bittoni P, Covazzi-Harriague A (2011) On the quantitative distribution and community structure of the meio and macrofaunal communities in the coastal area of the Central Adriatic Sea (Italy). Environ Monit Assess 180:325–344
Goineau A, Fontanier C, Jorissen FJ, Lansard B, Buscail R, Mouret A, Kerhervé P, Zaragosi S, Ernoult E, Artéro C, Anschutz P, Metzger E, Rabouill C (2011) Live (stained) benthic foraminifera from the Rhône prodelta (Gulf of Lion, NW Mediterranean): environmental controls on a river-dominated shelf. J Sea Res 65:58–75
Goineau A, Fontanier C, Jorissen FJ, Buscail R, Kerhervé P, Cathalot C, Pruski AM, Lantoine F, Bourgeois S, Metzger E, Legrand E, Rabouille C (2012) Temporal variability of live (stained) benthic foraminiferal faunas in a river-dominated shelf – faunal response to rapid changes of the river influence (Rhone prodelta, NW Mediterranean). Biogeosciences 9:1367–1388
Gooday AJ (1993) Deep-sea benthic foraminiferal species which exploit phytodetritus: characteristic features and controls on distribution. Mar Micropaleontol 22:187–205
Gooday AJ (2002) Organic-walled allogromiids: aspects of their occurrence, diversity and ecology in marine habitats. J Foraminifer Res 32:384–399
Gooday AJ, Nomaki H, Kitazato H (2008) Modern deep-sea benthic foraminifera: a brief review of their biodiversity and trophic diversity. In: Austin WEN, James RH (eds) Biogeochemical controls on palaeoceanographic environmental proxies. Geological Society, London
Gooday AJ, Jorissen F, Levin LA, Middelburg JJ, Naqvi SWA, Rabalais NN, Scranton M, Zhang J (2009) Historical records of coastal eutrophication-induced hypoxia. Biogeosciences 6:1707–1745
Gooday AJ, Bett BJ, Escobar E, Ingole B, Levin LA, Neira C, Raman AV, Sellanes J (2010) Habitat heterogeneity and its influence on benthic biodiversity in oxygen minimum zones. Mar Ecol 31:125–147
Grüber A (1884) Die Protozoen des Hafens von Genua. Nova Acta der kaiserlich-Leopoldinisch-Carolinische. Deutschen Akademie der Naturforscher 46:475–539
Hallock P, Lidz BH, Cockey-Burkhard EM, Donnelly KB (2003) Foraminifera as bioindicators in coral reef assessment and monitoring: the foram index. Environ Monit Assess 81:221–238
Haq BU, Boersma A (1998) Introduction to marine micropaleontology. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Hatziyanni E (1999) Ecology of benthic meiofauna and foraminifera. Dissertation, University of Crete
Hayward BW, Cedhagen T, Kaminski M, Gross O (2011) World Modern Foraminifera database. http://www.marinespecies.org/foraminifera. Accessed 22 Aug 2012
Heinz P, Schmiedl G, Kitazato H, Hemleben C (2001) Response of deep-sea benthic foraminifera from the Mediterranean sea to simulated phytoplankton pulses under laboratory conditions. J Foraminifer Res 31:210–227
Hemleben C, Spindler M, Anderson OR (1989) Modern planktonic foraminifera. Springer, New York
Hillaire-Marcel C, de Vernal A (2007) Proxies in Late Cenozoic Paleoceanography. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam
Hofker J (1960) Foraminiferen aus dem Golf von Neapel. Paläontol Z 34(3/4):233–262
Hohenegger J, Piller WE, Baal C (1993) Horizontal and vertical spatial microdistribution of foraminifers in the shallow subtidal Gulf of Trieste, Northern Adriatic Sea. J Foraminifer Res 23:79–101
Holzmann M, Pawlowski J (2002) Freshwater foraminifera from lake Geneva: past and present. J Foraminifer Res 32:344–350
Holzmann M, Habura A, Giles H, Bowser S, Pawlowski J (2003) Freshwater foraminiferans revealed by analysis of environmental DNA samples. J Eukaryot Microbiol 50:135–139
Huxley T (1910) Note on Shepheardella taeniformis Siddall. Zool Anz 36:124–125
Hyams-Kaphzan O, Almogi-Labin A, Sivan D, Benjamini C (2008) Benthic foraminifera assemblage change along the southeastern Mediterranean inner shelf due to fall-off of Nile-derived siliciclastics. N Jahrb Geol Palaeontol 248:315–344
Hyams-Kaphzan O, Almogi-Labin A, Benjamini C, Herut B (2009) Natural olygotrophy vs. pollution-induced eutrophy on the SE Mediterranean shallow shelf (Israel): environmental parameters and benthic foraminifera. Mar Pollut Bull 58:1888–1902
Ingels J, Vanreusel A, Brandt A, Catarino AI, David B, De Ridder C, Dubois P, Gooday AJ, Martin P, Pasotti F, Robert H (2012) Possible effects of global environmental changes on Antarctic benthos: a synthesis across five major taxa. Ecol Evol 2:453–485
Jannink NT (2001) Seasonality, biodiversity and microhabitats in benthic foraminiferal communities. Geologica Ultraiectina 203:1–192
Jones TR, Parker WK (1860) On the rhizopodal fauna of the Mediterranean, compared with that of the Italian and some other Tertiary deposits. Q J Geol Soc 16:292–307
Jorissen FJ (1987) The distribution of benthic foraminifera in the Adriatic Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 12:21–48
Jorissen FJ (1988) Benthic foraminifera from the Adriatic Sea; principles of phenotypic variations. Utrecht Micropaleontol Bull 37:1–174
Jorissen FJ, Barmawidjaj DM, Puskaric S, van der Zwaan GJ (1992) Vertical distribution of benthic foraminifera in the northern Adriatic Sea: the relation with the organic flux. Mar Micropaleontol 19:131–146
Lampadariou N, Tselepides A, Hatziyanni E (2009) Deep-sea meiofaunal and foraminiferal communities along a gradient of primary productivity in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. Sci Mar 73:337–345
Le Cadre V, Debenay JP (2006) Morphological and cytological responses of Ammonia (Foraminifera) to copper contamination: implication for the use of foraminifera as bioindicators of pollution. Environ Pollut 143:304–317
Le Calvez J, Le Calvez Y (1958) Répartition des Foraminifères dans la Baie de Villefranche. I Miliolidae. Ann Inst Oceanogr 35(3):159–234
Lipps JH (1983) Biotic interactions in benthic foraminifera. In: Trevesz MJS, McCall PL (eds) Biotic interactions in recent and fossil benthic communities. Plenum Press, New York
Lipps JH, Finger KL, Walker SE (2011) What should we call the foraminifera? J Foraminifer Res 41:309–313
Madkour HA, Ali MY (2009) Heavy metals in the benthic foraminifera from the coastal lagoons, Red Sea, Egypt: indicators of anthropogenic impact on environment (case study). Environ Geol 58:543–553
Massiotta R, Cita MB, Mancuso M (1976) Benthonic foraminifers from bathyal depths in the Eastern Mediterranean. Marit Sediments Spec Publ 1:251–262
McIlroy D, Green OR, Brasier MD (1994) The world’s oldest foraminiferans. Microsc Anal 147:13–15
Meisterfeld R, Holzmann M, Pawlowski J (2001) Morphological and molecular characterization of a new terrestrial allogromiid species: Edaphoallogromia australica gen. et spec. nov. (Foraminifera) from Northern Queensland (Australia). Protist 152:185–192
Milker Y, Schmiedl G, Betzler C, Römer M, Jaramillo-Vogel D, Siccha M (2009) Distribution of recent benthic foraminifera in shelf carbonate environments of the Western Mediterranean Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 73:207–229
Mojtahid M, Jorissen FJ, Lansard B, Fontanier C, Bombled B, Rabouille C (2009) Spatial distribution of live benthic foraminifera in the Rhône prodelta: faunal response to a continental–marine organic matter gradient. Mar Micropaleontol 70:177–200
Mojtahid M, Jorissen FJ, Lansard B, Fontanier C (2010) Microhabitat selection of benthic foraminifera in sediments off the Rhone river mouth (NW Mediterranean Sea). J Foraminifer Res 40:231–246
Moodley L, van der Zwaann GJ, Herman PMJ, Kempers L, van Breugel P (1997) Differential response of benthic meiofauna to anoxia with special reference to foraminifera (Protista: Sarcodina). Mar Ecol Prog Ser 158:151–163
Moodley L, Middelburg JJ, Boschker HTS, Duineveld GCA, Pel R, Herman PMJ, Heip CHR (2002) Bacteria and foraminifera: key players in a short-term deep-sea benthic response to phytodetritus. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 236:23–29
Morigi C (1999) Clima e produttività oceanica nel tardo Quaternario: analisi statistica delle associazioni a foraminiferi nell’Atlantico tropicale. Dissertation, University of Bologna
Murray JW (1982) Benthic foraminifera: the validity of living, dead or total assemblages for the interpretation of palaeoecology. J Micropalaeontol 1:137–140
Murray JW (1991) Ecology and palaeoecology of benthic foraminifera. Wiley/Longman Scientific and Technical, New York/Harlow
Murray JW (2000) The enigma of the continued use of total assemblages in ecological studies of benthic foraminifera. J Foraminifer Res 30:244–245
Murray JW (2007) Biodiversity of living benthic foraminifera: how many species are there? Mar Micropaleontol 64:163–176
Murray JW, Bowser SS (2000) Mortality, protoplasm decay rate, and reliability of staining techniques to recognize ‘living’ foraminifera: a review. J Foraminifer Res 30:66–70
Myers EH (1943) Life activities of foraminifera in relation to marine ecology. Proc Am Philos Soc 86:439–459
Nardelli MP (2012) Response of benthic foraminifera to pollution through experimental and in situ studies: advances in biological aspects and tools for future application in biomonitoring. Dissertation, Polytechnic University of Marche
Nyholm K-G (1951) A new monothalamous foraminifer. Marenda nematoides n. gen. N. sp. Contrib Cushman Found Foraminifer Res 2:95
Pancotti I (2011) Variazioni longitudinali, batimetriche e biogeografiche di abbondanza, biomassa e diversità della meiofauna a foraminiferi bentonici nel Mediterraneo profondo e Atlantico. Dissertation, Polytechnic University of Marche
Panieri G (2005) Benthic foraminifera from a recent, shallow-water hydrothermal environment in the Aeolian Arc (Tyrrhenian Sea). Mar Geol 218:207–229
Panieri G (2006a) Foraminiferal response to an active methane seep environment: a case study from the Adriatic Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 61:116–130
Panieri G (2006b) The effect of shallow marine hydrothermal vent activity on benthic foraminifera (Aeolian Arc, Tyrrhenian Sea). J Foraminifer Res 36:3–14
Parisi E (1981) Distribuzione dei foraminiferi bentonici nelle zone batiali del Tirreno e del Canale di Sicilia. Riv Ital Paleontol 87:293–328
Parker WK (1958) Eastern Mediterranean foraminifera. Rep Swed Deep-Sea Exped 8:217–283
Phleger FB (1960) Ecology and distribution of recent foraminifera. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore
Pranovi F, Serandrei Barbero R (1994) Benthic communities of northern Adriatic areas subject to anoxic conditions. Memorie di Scienze Geologiche 46:79–92
Pucci F (2006) Ecologia dei foraminiferi bentonici: risposta sperimentale alle condizione di anossia e applicazione alla ricostruzione paleo ambientale. Dissertation, Polytechnic University of Marche
Pucci F, Geslin E, Barras C, Morigi C, Sabbatini A, Negri A, Jorissen FJ (2009) Survival of benthic foraminifera under hypoxic conditions: results of an experimental study using the Cell Tracker Green method. Mar Pollut Bull 59:336–351
Pujol C, Vergnaud-Grazzini C (1995) Distribution patterns of live planktic foraminifera as related to regional hydrography and productive systems of the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 25:187–217
Rhumbler R (1904) Systematische Zusammenstallung der recenten Reticulosa (Nuda + Foraminifera) I Teil. Archiv für Protistenkunde 3:181–294
Rohling EJ, Cooke S (2002) Stable oxygen and carbon isotopes in foraminiferal carbonate shelles. In: Sen Gupta BK (ed) Modern foraminifera. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London
Romano E, Bergamin L, Finoia MG, Carboni MG, Ausili A, Gabellini M (2008) Industrial pollution at Bagnoli (Naples, Italy): benthic foraminifera as a tool in integrated programs of environmental characterisation. Mar Pollut Bull 56:439–457
Romano E, Bergamin L, Finoia MG, Magno MC, Mercatali I, Ausili A, Gabellini M (2009a) The effects of human impact on benthic foraminifera in the Augusta harbour (Sicily, Italy). In: Moksness E, Dahl E, Støttrup JG (eds) Integrated coastal zone management. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, London
Romano E, Bergamin L, Ausili A, Pierfranceschi G, Maggi C, Sesta G, Gabellini M (2009b) The impact of the Bagnoli industrial site (Naples, Italy) on sea-bottom environment. Chemical and textural features of sediments and the related response of benthic foraminifera. Mar Pollut Bull 59:245–256
Sabbatini A, Morigi C, Negri A, Gooday AJ (2002) Soft-shelled benthic foraminifera from a hadal site (7,800 m water depth) in the Atacama Trench (SE Pacific): preliminary observations. J Micropalaeontol 21:131–135
Sabbatini A, Bonatto S, Gooday AJ, Morigi C, Pancotti I, Pucci F, Negri A (2010) Modern benthic foraminifes at Northern shallow sites of Adriatic Sea and soft-walled, monothalamous taxa: a brief overview. Micropaleontology 59:359–376
Sabbatini A, Bonatto S, Bianchelli S, Pusceddu A, Danovaro R, Negri A (2012) Foraminiferal assemblages and trophic state in coastal sediments of the Adriatic Sea. J Mar Syst 105:163–174. doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2012.07.009
Samir AM, El-Din AB (2001) Benthic foraminiferal assemblages and morphological abnormalities as pollution proxies in two Egyptian bays. Mar Micropaleontol 41:193–227
Schmiedl G, de Bovée F, Buscail R, Charrière B, Hemleben C, Medernach L, Picon P (2000) Trophic control of benthic foraminiferal abundance and microhabitat in the bathyal Gulf of Lions, western Mediterranean Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 40:167–188
Schönfeld J (2012) History and development of methods in recent benthic foraminiferal studies. J Micropalaeontol 31:53–72
Schönfeld J, Alve E, Geslin E, Jorissen F, Korsun S, Spezzaferri S, Members of the FOBIMO group (2012) The FOBIMO (FOraminiferal BIo-MOnitoring) initiative – towards a standardised protocol for soft-bottom benthic foraminiferal monitoring studies. Mar Micropalaeontol 94–95:1–13
Scott DB, Medioli FS (1980) Living vs total foraminiferal populations: their relative usefulness in paleoecology. J Paleontol 54:814–831
Sen Gupta BK (2002) Modern foraminifera. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London
Serandrei Barbero R, Albani A, Favero V (1989) Distribuzione dei foraminiferi recenti nella laguna a Nord di Venezia. Boll Soc Geol Ital 108:279–288
Serandrei Barbero R, Carbognin L, Taroni G, Cova E (1999) Distribution of recent benthic foraminifera in the southern basin of the Venice lagoon (Italy): statistical evaluation of taxa significance. Micropaleontology 45:99–111
Serandrei Barbero R, Morisieri M, Carbognin L, Donnici S (2003) An inner shelf foraminiferal fauna and its response to environmental processes (Adriatic Sea, Italy). Revista Española de Micropaleontología 35:241–264
Sgarrella F, Barra B, Improta A (1983) The benthic foraminifers of the Gulf of Policastro (Southern Tyrrhenian Sea, Italy). Bollettino della Società dei Naturalisti in Napoli 92:67–114
Sharifi AR, Croudace TW, Austin RL (1991) Benthonic foraminiferids as pollution indicators in Southampton water, Southern England, UK. J Micropalaeontol 10:109–113
Soetaert K, Heip C, Vincx M (1991) The meiobenthos along a Mediterranean deep-sea transect off Calvi (Corsica) and in an adjacent canyon. Mar Ecol 12:227–242
Soldani A (1789) Testaceographiae ac Zoophytographiae parvae et microscopicae. Tomus Primus. Senis, Firenze
Soldani A (1795) Testaceographiae ac Zoophytographiae parvae et microscopicae. Tomus Primus pars tertia. In: Molini G, Rossi FS (eds) Testaceographiae ac Zoophytographiae parvae et microscopicae. Senis, Firenze
Thunell RC (1978) Distribution of recent planktonic foraminifera in surface sediments of the Mediterranean Sea. Mar Micropaleontol 3:147–173
Todd R (1958) Foraminifera from western Mediterranean deep-sea cores. Rep Swed Deep-Sea Exped 8:167–215
Valenti D, Tranchina L, Brai M, Caruso A, Cosentino C, Spagnolo B (2008) Environmental metal pollution considered as noise: effects on the spatial distribution of benthic foraminifera in two coastal marine areas of Sicily (southern Italy). Ecol Model 213:449–462
Vénec-Peyré MT (1990) Contribution of foraminifera to the study of recent sedimentation in the gulf of Lions (western Mediterranean Sea). Cont Shelf Res 10:869–883
von Linnaeus C (1758) Systema naturae, sive regna tria natura systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera et species. Holmiae, Laurentii Salvii, Stockholm
Walton WR (1953) Techniques for recognition of living foraminifera. Contrib Cushman Found Foraminifer Res 3:56–60
Wiesner H (1923) Die miliolideen der östlichen Adria: Privately printed, Prag-Bubenec, 113 p
Yanko V, Arnold AJ, Parker WC (1999) Effects of marine pollution on benthic foraminifera. In: Sen Gupta BK (ed) Modern foraminifera. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Andrew J Gooday (National Oceanography Centre) and Antonio Pusceddu (DiSVA, Polytechnic University of Marche) for constructive discussions and for critical assessment of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sabbatini, A., Morigi, C., Nardelli, M.P., Negri, A. (2014). Foraminifera. In: Goffredo, S., Dubinsky, Z. (eds) The Mediterranean Sea. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6704-1_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6704-1_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-6703-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6704-1
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)